This is a bit unusual. I got an email from AMD PR this week asking me to correct the Bulldozer transistor count in our Sandy Bridge E review. The incorrect number, provided to me (and otherreviewers) by AMD PR around 3 months ago was 2 billion transistors. The actual transistor count for Bulldozer is apparently 1.2 billion transistors. I don't have an explanation as to why the original number was wrong, just that the new number has been triple checked by my contact and is indeed right. The total die area for a 4-module/8-core Bulldozer remains correct at 315mm2.

CPU Specification Comparison

CPU

Manufacturing Process

Cores

Transistor Count

Die Size

AMD Bulldozer 8C

32nm

8

1.2B ~2B

315mm2

AMD Thuban 6C

45nm

6

904M

346mm2

AMD Deneb 4C

45nm

4

758M

258mm2

Intel Gulftown 6C

32nm

6

1.17B

240mm2

Intel Sandy Bridge E (6C)

32nm

6

2.27B

435mm2

Intel Nehalem/Bloomfield 4C

45nm

4

731M

263mm2

Intel Sandy Bridge 4C

32nm

4

995M

216mm2

Intel Lynnfield 4C

45nm

4

774M

296mm2

Intel Clarkdale 2C

32nm

2

384M

81mm2

Intel Sandy Bridge 2C (GT1)

32nm

2

504M

131mm2

Intel Sandy Bridge 2C (GT2)

32nm

2

624M

149mm2

Despite the downward revision in Bulldozer's transistor count by 800M, AMD's first high-end 32nm processor still boasts a higher transistor density than any of its 45nm predecessors (as you'd expect):

Transistor density depends on more than just process technology. The design of the chip itself including details like the balance between logic, cache and IO transistors can have a major impact on how compact the die ends up being. Higher transistor densities are generally more desirable to a manufacturer (fewer defects per die, more die per wafer, lower costs), but from the end user's perspective the overall price/performance (and power?) ratio is what ultimately matters.

I've been insisting on personally inspecting the Lithography of any CPU I buy in a store, just like I do any other thing like MB and graphics card. I figure if I push for it long enough, I might be able to get them to bring in an electron microscope.

Maybe they just wanted to cover up the somewhat higher power consumption at launch with the fact that, of course it has to consume a bit more power, look, it's got nearly twice the transistor count of a Gulftown chip.Reply

Doubt it, saying we doubled the transistor count while barely edging out our own old part most of the time is hardly good for PR. This was either a confusion between the desktop and server/16 core chip, or a difference in how they count transistors because of the new automatic design method which produces far more useless transistors than manual creation would. Reply

Yes I only had to listen to the amd fan boys for over three months go on and on about how amd engineers could pack so many transistors in so little die speace, the efficiency being very excellent and "proved once again" they have the "best hardware". Just imagine how the PR mancheans giggled reading the fanboys blubbering on.

Then, since the performance was so suck, the amd fans went into a tirade on windows inefficiency and tin foil hat Intel and Microsoft conspiracy theories, then we saw the endless "scheduling issue" lie rear it's ugly head, and the windows patch, that did crap squiggly for it.

The PR liars did a wonderful job snowballing the fan base. They deserve a raise for the boldness and effectiveness of the massive duping they delivered all the EXPERTS...Reply